Pablo: Ah, yes. Bring on the personal attacks. When you don't have a substantive argument....

The question is whether for the time they were working together, what they had constituted a partnership. The issue isn't whether he's currently in a partnership. If there was a partnership, it's now over. What his remedy would be if a court found a partnership to have existed, I don't know.

For the record, I've never met or spoken to DTP. I'm just being a blogger, doing the blogger thing. I wonder why more people aren't? Why are you, for example, jazzed up about protecting them? If this were an incident concerning MSM, I wonder what the size of the blog storm would be.

It's entirely clear that it isn't the same business. DTP relates discussion of an advertising company for bloggers. PJ/OSM, particularly in it's current incarnation, is in the news business.

That's only because nobody actually knows what PJM/OSM is supposed to be....I'm sure Roger and Charles still have designs on providing advertising for blogs...their OSM site is set up for it. It's purely incompetence that has held them up so far. Roger and Charles sold all of the bloggers there (and attempted with Ann) on the idea of an advertising network, thats pretty close to the project that DTP and the S&C were working on no?

Ann:

Pablo is an LGF'er. Hence his rather lame defence of the project. They can't deal with the fact that their Lizard 'Master' could be so involved in such a monumental balls up.

1) In my non-legally trained eyes, the concept/business model for Tulip Advertising bears no resemblence to whatever Pajamas Media is supposed to be.

2) I will take legal action against anyone who suggests I had anything to do with making Pajamas Media what it is today. I've been called every name in the book over the past week, but a man has to draw a line somewhere...

Bottom line, quote: "Every corporation or LLC is preceded by some planning, but such planning does not necessarily result in the formation of a partnership."

Dennis, I've got nothing against you: if you think there qwas a partnership formed, then sue Roger. The way things are going, though, I wonder if you're not simply setting yourself up to either be sued by Roger, or to arrange things so that you'd lose a suit from general misconduct.

A week ago your questions would have made sense. That you are asking them today simply tells me you haven't taken the time or made the effort to read what I have been saying about this.

My anger with RLS has nothing to do with being "cut out" of Pajamas Media. Pajamas Media as it stands today bears no relationship to the business concept we had when discussing Tulip Advertising. And I have made that quite clear.

I am angry at Roger L. Simon because, at every possible turn, he chose to deal with me in an unethical and personally dishonest manner. And I have been quite clear about that, too.

Had RLS come to me at the appropriate time and explained he was going in a different direction and with a different crew, my reaction would have been no different than Marc Danzinger's. But RLS didn't choose to do that.

When I wrote and posted "The 'Certain Thing'", I invited the blogosphere to compare 'Certain Thing' to RLS's "This is so High School". The blogosphere has, and it appears to be clear what the reaction has been.

Had my grievances with RLS rang untrue or petty in my post, you would not be asking what you are asking. I don't know what else to say to you, other than:

It's very easy to stand around saying "turn the over cheek" when your cheek isn't involved.

But you called the Peasant a "Pissant" over at Roger's. Dennis was very hurt. Didn't you read Roger's post "Words." Words hurt. Of course, Roger's wife was busy calling Dennis a rapist/arsonist in the in the comments to hubby's post (scroll down) and in other places. I guess the Simon's own more than one computer.

After posting that I noticed my choice of words had been too harsh. But since I had been monopolizing the thread I was reluctant to post again. So thanks for making that important point. Let me remind you also that the man she compared you to has yet to be convicted (or captured?), so it really was just a lot of conjecture. I also wrote, "Dennis was very hurt." I do not know this as a fact. Thus I should've have written, "Dennis might well have been very hurt by those words, delicate flower that he is."

Ann says: Pablo: Ah, yes. Bring on the personal attacks. When you don't have a substantive argument....

Personal attack? Please don't tell me that you're so fragile that you find a suggestion of collaboration between yourself and DTP, who seems quite handy around here, to be a personal attack.

You're still an attorney, no? You understand the value of using terms in accordance with their definitions, no?

Having said that, you seem to have a deep emotional investment in the issue. It's amusing to watch. That's not an attack, merely an observation of the obvious.

As for the substantive argument that I provided and you ignored, let's refer to Gordon Smith, to whom you linked:The key inquiry: Is Pajamas Media a different business than the one envisioned during those early talks between Simon, Kelly, and Johnson?

It is clearly not the same business. I think Dennis has done a fine job of making that clear. Now, would you like to discuss that, or would you prefer to simply dismiss me as a misoginist for my failure to support your position?

Why are you, for example, jazzed up about protecting them?

Would you care to define that? I've made a couple of comments on the situation. You've made a calling of chronicling it with the vitriol that comes from having been "disrespected", much like DTP.

If this were an incident concerning MSM, I wonder what the size of the blog storm would be.

What exactly is the nature of the "incident" you're referring to? We seem to be discussing a dispute, not an incident.

It's a startup. There are going to be screwups. that's the nature of startups. To call the thing a failure upon it's birth is akin to calling the war in Iraq a failure because it wasn't over in 30 days. Sure, you can see it that way if you like, but history may well make you look foolish.

Predict at your own risk.

P.S. to Colin: That's me. Neocon warmonger Bush-worshipping redneck Islamophobe. Do you think I'd have a shot with the likes of a Berkely house whore? Broadbrushing is such fun!

That wasn't what I was objecting to. As a Lizard you are in no position to take a moral stand on character assasinations and personal attacks. LGF is one big schoolyard. So for the kiddies over there to complain about people being mean is a tad hypocritical.

PS If Charles wasn't involved would you read OSM...Pajamas? Or go straight to the bloggers you know? Perhaps someone somewhere has a need to read AP headlines (outside AP) and official Communist party propaganda.....but I don't, and I'm sure people like you don't either.